My friend, this may get complicated because you've embedded so many mathematical and statistical errors in your response they will be difficult to tease out. Let me start by responding to your first point.
Originally Posted by Senator Hatrack
It [Separation of church and state] is not an issue because of decision by the current Supreme Court. It is because of decisions made by the Supreme Court decades ago. Decisions that misinterpreted the idea of the separation of church and state. This can be fixed by the Supreme Court making decisions based on what is the state supporting a religion. When a city government puts a manger scene on the city hall lawn that is not government support of a religion.

I apologize for my mischaracterization of your previous post. I thought you were being reasonable. My mistake. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court
Quote
established the "Lemon test" (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon),[4] which details legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:

The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
The principal or primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)
Factors.
Character and purpose of institution benefited.
Nature of aid the state provides.
Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.
If any of these prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Is pretty straightforward, and was an 8-1 decision. In Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), the so-called "manger" case, however, they ruled the other way in allowing the nativity scene to be placed. In my view, it's been downhill ever since. I don't think it is appropriate for a government to display religious symbols in this manner.